Microsoft's decision to limit Metro apps to the Windows Store is the wrong one.

The October 26 retail release of Windows 8 heralds a new era for the world’s most widely used operating system, in which both tablets and traditional desktops are (theoretically) given equal consideration.

Overhauling Windows to make it usable with both fingers and mouse-and-keyboard is very much a response to Apple’s success with the iPad and iOS. But Microsoft is imitating Apple in one very bad way, by limiting the distribution of Metro applications to a Microsoft-controlled app store.

The introduction of Apple's iOS App Store in July 2008 had a huge impact on the way software is distributed to mobile devices. It has been replicated on every major mobile platform, the Mac desktop, and now Windows. The iOS App Store represents the extreme end in the open vs. closed dichotomy we're going to look at in this article—on iPhones and iPads, nothing can be installed unless it comes from the App Store, and Apple has final say over what goes in the store. But iOS isn't the only model, and it's not the model Microsoft should follow in Windows 8 and Windows RT.

Windows has been successful for decades in large part because of its openness, allowing developers to distribute software to users however they'd like. By bringing Windows to tablets, Microsoft could strike a blow for openness in a market dominated by a closed system. Instead, Microsoft is bringing the same restrictions found on iPads to both Windows tablets and PCs.

There are security benefits to a closed app store model, particularly for less tech-savvy users who may not understand all the dangers on the Web. There are also, arguably, convenience benefits; end-users can be reasonably confident that the apps they download will work correctly and be at least marginally useful. So it's not unreasonable for Microsoft to make Windows' default behavior as restrictive as the iPad's, which is what Microsoft is doing with Windows RT and the Metro portion of Windows 8.

But while these security and convenience benefits might be enough to justify the existence of a curated app store, they don't justify the decision to make that store the only option for all users. Informed users should be allowed to install applications from wherever they want.

Microsoft is intent on making the Windows Store the primary avenue to get Metro apps. While we think the iPad approach is the wrong one, a good model for Microsoft to follow comes from one of Cupertino's other products—OS X. Android also offers a more open approach, but we feel the one that's right for Windows 8 is something like the Mac's Gatekeeper, a combination of a restrictive app store and an escape hatch that lets people go around it.

The new rules

"Open" is an overloaded term. We're advocating a more open Windows 8, but by using the word "open," we're not referring to open source. In the context of this article, we define an open platform as one that provides documentation to developers for free, has no restriction on who may develop applications, and no restriction on what types of applications can be developed. Free access to developers would be nice, but it's not really a dealbreaker.

The Windows Store for Windows 8 and Windows RT does offer free documentation to developers. There are restrictions on who may develop applications, but they mostly come down to location and money. As long as you live in one of the 120 or so approved countries and pony up $49 per year for individuals or $99 per year for corporations, you're in (although Microsoft reserves the right to revoke a developer's account). Just as Apple does on iOS, Microsoft takes a 30 percent cut on app sales.

The most troubling area in which the Windows Store falls short of openness is the restrictions on what types of apps can be developed and distributed. In the Store, Microsoft exercises control over both the editorial content of applications and their functionality.

Microsoft is introducing two new operating systems: Windows RT for ARM-based touchscreen devices, and Windows 8 for x86 computers. Each is split into two user interfaces, the traditional desktop everyone is familiar with and the Metro (or Modern UI) tile-based interface that replaces the Start menu and emphasizes tablet-y apps.

Windows RT is as locked down as an iPad. There is no option to install traditional desktop applications. Only the ones pre-loaded by Microsoft, specifically the built-in applets that come with Windows, and Office Home & Student 2013, are available. Developers can distribute Metro apps to Windows RT, but only through the Windows Store—which can only include apps that don't fall afoul of Microsoft's restrictions on content and behavior.

Windows 8 is more open—but still troubling. Developers are allowed to write applications to the desktop and distribute them however they'd like, just as on Windows 7. But the same Windows Store restrictions for Metro apps found in Windows RT are present in Windows 8.

"We're going to ensure that the Windows 8 Store is the only place that Metro style apps can be distributed," Microsoft's Ted Dworkin said a year ago when introducing the store. Microsoft's public statements on the matter have not changed since. There are exceptions for developers to sideload apps for testing, and for businesses to distribute custom apps for employees (just as on the iPad), but developers can't distribute Metro apps to a general audience without going through the Windows Store.

So what, you say? The “desktop” portion of Windows is still there. Just as they could with Windows 7, Vista, XP, and previous versions, developers can build any Windows app they want and let users download it from anywhere. Windows, at least the part users are familiar with, is still just as open as it always was. Metro, or whatever it’s called, is just extra functionality in addition to the desktop. As such, defenders of the restrictions argue that users therefore haven't lost anything.

They're correct—and will continue to be correct, for a while. With only a few thousand applications in the Windows Store at this date, Metro won’t take over the traditional desktop anytime soon. But in the long run, Microsoft’s emphasis on Metro points to a future in which Metro is the primary user interface for Windows desktops and tablets, for mouse-and-keyboard users and touchscreen users alike. And, unless Microsoft changes course, it will be locked down in ways the traditional Windows desktop never was.

Chipping away at user freedom, one device at a time

Richard Stallman's dream of giving users the freedom to modify every aspect of every piece of software they use, even if you believe in it, has no realistic chance of coming true this decade—or century, perhaps. We certainly have some open source software floating around the Ars Orbiting HQ, but our definition of user freedom is more forgiving. As long as the Microsofts and Apples of the world don't restrict development of third-party applications, and let users install software from any source, we're happy to call the Windows and Mac operating systems "open platforms."

Windows and Mac have long been open in this respect, but Apple's decision to lock down the iPhone and iPad (and the success of those devices) has initiated, or at least accelerated, a trend toward OS lockdown. The iPhone and iPad, if they're not jailbroken, allow installation of apps from just one source—Apple's App Store.

Let us be clear—we dislike Apple's decision to prevent users from installing any application they want. It's why we prefer iPads when they're jailbroken. When the iOS App Store debuted in 2008, the true impact of the restrictions was unclear, and not necessarily troubling. The store provided convenience of a kind we'd never really seen before, and HTML5 was there to provide any functionality that couldn't be had through the store. At the same time, we'd seen other smartphone platforms without the kinds of restrictions that Apple imposed, and they were a user-hostile mess. Back in 2008, we could have believed that the lock-down was essential to make the smartphone a mass-market success.

But times have changed. We've learned a lot about just how important apps are, and that HTML5 is presently a poor alternative to real apps; the HTML5 end-run around the store restrictions isn't enough. With Android, we've seen a successful mass-market smartphone platform without the same tight content restrictions. Finally, the increasing use of the iPad for functions traditionally associated with desktops has meant that the restrictions are encroaching on more traditional computing devices. Together, these things make Apple's closed model less forgivable.

Add to that the knowledge that Apple uses its position as curator to make some very questionable decisions—actions such as a (temporary) ban on a satirical application created by a Pulitzer Prize winner are maddening—and the wholly closed model makes us even more unhappy. We wonder what else we're missing out on.

There are also signs that Apple's iOS rules are slowly creeping into the desktop. The latest versions of OS X use "Gatekeeper," a set of restrictions in OS X that by default prevent installation of applications from outside the App Store or from unrecognized developers.

But getting around Gatekeeper is easy—Apple provides an officially supported escape hatch. No typing in the terminal is required, you just flip a switch in a settings menu, and apps can be installed from anywhere. Still, the out-of-the-box behavior of OS X partially mimics the restrictions in iOS:

The standard justification for these restrictions is generally "security." If users can install software not explicitly rubber-stamped by Apple, they're more at risk. That may be true up to a point, but it's hard to imagine this strategy scaling very well. Apple has access to all the source code for Mac OS X and its own software. It developed much of the code itself, and knows it intimately. Yet OS X, Safari, iTunes, and Apple's other software periodically contains critical security flaws.

For applications submitted to the store, Apple does not even receive source code. Is it really credible to believe that Apple has performed a thorough analysis of these 700,000 apps to ensure that they don't have security flaws that can harm users? Of course not. In fact, we know it has not: security researcher Charlie Miller proved that by tricking Apple into publishing a proof-of-concept app that exposed iOS security flaws. Apple's verification processes may manage to keep the worst of the worst away from users, but this falls a long way short of providing a cast iron safety guarantee.

On the other hand, we know that Apple has rejected applications that are harmless, solely because they offend the company's sensibilities. In one recent case, Apple refused to publish an application that tells users when American drones have killed "enemies" of the state.

Another argument put forward is that the lockdown is in some sense a response to consumer demand. As popular as Apple's handheld products are, we could argue that consumers are voting with their wallets in choosing a mobile operating system that allows app installation from anywhere and has multiple app stores. Android has surged past the iPhone in total smartphone market share, and is gaining in the tablet market with the success of the Nexus 7 and Kindle Fire. Android has had its security problems, to be sure, but they're not enough to drive consumers away. Android is getting more systematically secure, too; Miller says the latest version of Android has been hardened and will be difficult to exploit.

Android takes an approach that's similar to the Mac's Gatekeeper. By default, apps can only be downloaded from the Google Play store, but users are allowed to change a setting allowing installation of apps from "unknown sources." Like the Mac, this offers a "safe-by-default" approach without completely shutting users out from unofficial app distribution channels.

We've seen that security can dramatically improve with strong under-the-hood protections that prevent silent installation of malicious applications, while still giving the user the right to choose what may be installed on their system. Microsoft provides perhaps the best example of this, with its User Account Control technology in Windows Vista and Windows 7. So why can't Microsoft secure Metro without locking out non-Store applications?

Android's app store is very open, with developers being able to publish applications after only an automated review to weed out malware. Microsoft's app store model is a lot more like the one Apple uses than Google's, and that's fine. But Microsoft needs to couple that with a concession to developers and users who don't want to be restricted to just the Windows Store.

I hope I don't live in a fantasy world when I say I hope that when Metro is able to replace the normal desktop, it will no longer be Windows Store only. I hope, some 5 years down the line or whatever, Metro becomes windowed and unrestricted and that this is only a start to a move away from Win32. I mean, I certainly like the idea of Metro apps and have no problem using them alongside my desktop apps, but I would not want just Metro apps.

I am very curious to see the response of developers to the Metro environment. I have personally found it aggravating to try to develop applications and find myself hampered at every turn. So many APIs that I am used to are blacklisted so it is nearly impossible to use any open source library without significant modification. I sure don't think Microsoft is getting any bonus points from app developers and it will harm them in the long term.

I am very dissappointed to see Microsoft ape Apple when they should be leading the way out of this shitty "walled garden" world Apple is trying to drive us into.

I think you might have misread the piece, and/or misunderstood Apple's strategy. Microsoft is not aping Apple's desktop strategy - they are applying Apple's SMARTPHONE and TABLET app distribution strategy to their own DESKTOP OS. As Ars points out, installing software from whatever source you desire is as easy as flipping a switch in Apple's desktop OS.

So, in this sense, Microsoft is now leading the charge for a walled garden software distribution approach for desktop OSes.

On the "Contains Excessive Profanity" requirement, do you know how they are checking this? For example, how does this relate for applications that are using dictionaries -- for spell checking, text-to-speech or other similar functions? Are they going to be blocked for including swear words in the dictionary/pronunciation files?

I am very dissappointed to see Microsoft ape Apple when they should be leading the way out of this shitty "walled garden" world Apple is trying to drive us into.

IMO, the solution to malware and phishing scams is a better, smarter OS, not a gatekeeper of any kind.

I'll be sticking with Windows 7 until Windows 9 comes out, which I can only pray will reverse the direction MS is headed right now.

Well, can you blame them? I'm sure we all here would prefer a more open Windows, but let's acknowledge reality: customers obviously prefer a locked-down approach. It's not fair to expect Microsoft to carry your ideals to its own destruction.

I am very dissappointed to see Microsoft ape Apple when they should be leading the way out of this shitty "walled garden" world Apple is trying to drive us into.

I think you might have misread the piece, and/or misunderstood Apple's strategy. Microsoft is not aping Apple's desktop strategy - they are applying Apple's SMARTPHONE and TABLET app distribution strategy to their own DESKTOP OS. As Ars points out, installing software from whatever source you desire is as easy as flipping a switch in OS X, Apple's desktop OS.

So, in this sense, Microsoft is now leading the charge for a walled garden software distribution approach for desktop OSes.

Except of course that in Win8 you don't even have to "flip a switch." It's Apple that's trying to lock down the desktop.

Edit for clarity: Imagine that, tomorrow, Apple made the iOS App Store available on the Mac desktop along with a "dashboard" that stored and ran your iOS apps, without changing anything else about how "normal" programs work in OS X. That's essentially the situation here with Windows. Except that only Apple is trying to lock even desktop application distribution to their own store.

"We can hope that Microsoft relaxes its restrictions on the Windows Store, and that the desktop remains open and vibrant, but we can't count on it."

Why not? What happens to their business install base stronghold the day they shut down the desktop? Does this actually seem like a plausible outcome?

As popular as Apple's handheld products are, we could argue that consumers are voting with their wallets in choosing a mobile operating system that allows app installation from anywhere and has multiple app stores.

This argument is a little backwards in my opinion. It is factors like lower prices, an abundance of different phone models and general availability that are the main drivers behind Android's success as a platform. I really don't think that neither the number of app stores nor the ability to install anything on an Android is anything more than a very minor factor. In fact, it seems that if Apple didn't have as well functioning an iOS store with more content than anyone else, then Android would have taken the lead a lot faster than they did.

I'm going to disagree... Microsoft is in a position where they are losing ground on many fronts due to poor OEMs and poor app developers. The BSOD joke is heavily now on the backs of poor developers than it is on the back of MS. So they are trying to take it back, and who can blame them? They still provide enterprise tools to side load apps for businesses, and that will only expand. Till then, they want the new Windows to be free of the jokes MS has become.

The store provided convenience of a kind we'd never really seen before

I don't agree, we've had this for quite some time, look at apt or rpm. And they're able to handle dependencies, allowing installation of software which are less than a gigabyte in size by not shipping every single library along with each and every program.

Granted, the UIs have been lacking (although I suppose they're catching up). Or are you referring to the option to buy software?

With the way things have been going in the MS camp, I've finally been driven to install OpenSUSE on my laptop, and learning to use a Linux distro.

I'm a huge gamer, so having Win7 is a must for now, but who knows what the future holds. At best I'll have a back up plan ready when doomsday comes, at worst I'll have learnt another OS...

I'm in the same boat! Already looking into which of my games will work under linux or using Wine. I'd love to be able to just using linux on my computers. No netflix and no games is currently the problem..

"3.2 Your app must not stop responding, end unexpectedly, or contain programming errors"

This requirement will cause all applications to fail the Windows 8 app certification -- especially for the last part. Unless your application is exessively trivial, it is almost guaranteed to contain programming errors. Moreso the more complex the application is.

Moreso if your application is dependent on any thirdparty libraries. How do you ensure these are error free and can be used with the async code you are writing?

What if your application is a memory intensive .NET appllication (e.g. 3D world renderer), so on low-memory devices the Garbage Collector runs frequently causing the application to stop responding?

Likewise, writing responsive code is difficult. Especially when you start adding threads and synchronization (sources of programming errors and crashes). Multi-treaded code is one of the hardest types of code to ensure is bug free. You can't just use async/synchronize everywhere and expect it to work.

With the way things have been going in the MS camp, I've finally been driven to install OpenSUSE on my laptop, and learning to use a Linux distro.

I'm a huge gamer, so having Win7 is a must for now, but who knows what the future holds. At best I'll have a back up plan ready when doomsday comes, at worst I'll have learnt another OS...

I'm in the same boat! Already looking into which of my games will work under linux or using Wine. I'd love to be able to just using linux on my computers. No netflix and no games is currently the problem..

Yeah I should be doing the same (I only have 1 evening of Linux experience under my belt for now, so the concept of multiple ways to install stuff is all new to me). Fortunately I've fallen out of love with AAA games for the last 3 years, so I'm hoping that most of my indie titles work under WINE.

"3.2 Your app must not stop responding, end unexpectedly, or contain programming errors"

This requirement will cause all applications to fail the Windows 8 app certification -- especially for the last part. Unless your application is exessively trivial, it is almost guaranteed to contain programming errors. Moreso the more complex the application is.

Moreso if your application is dependent on any thirdparty libraries. How do you ensure these are error free and can be used with the async code you are writing?

What if your application is a memory intensive .NET appllication (e.g. 3D world renderer), so on low-memory devices the Garbage Collector runs frequently causing the application to stop responding?

Likewise, writing responsive code is difficult. Especially when you start adding threads and synchronization (sources of programming errors and crashes). Multi-treaded code is one of the hardest types of code to ensure is bug free. You can't just use async/synchronize everywhere and expect it to work.

In practice, that requirement basically means "when we run it at certification time and flip through all the different pages of the interface, it doesn't freeze or crash." At least, that's what it seems to mean on the WIndows Phone store, since I've assuredly included "programming errors" in my apps before. I think you're reading it a bit too literally.

Imagine that, tomorrow, Apple made the iOS App Store available on the Mac desktop along with a "dashboard" that stored and ran your iOS apps, without changing anything else about how "normal" programs work in OS X. That's essentially the situation here with Windows. Except that only Apple is trying to lock even desktop application distribution to their own store.

This is different because of the dichotomy between Metro and desktop apps, in which one is open and one is closed. Ultimately, the concern is whether Metro replaces the desktop in real-world use similarly to how the desktop replaced MS-DOS.

I am very dissappointed to see Microsoft ape Apple when they should be leading the way out of this shitty "walled garden" world Apple is trying to drive us into.

IMO, the solution to malware and phishing scams is a better, smarter OS, not a gatekeeper of any kind.

I'll be sticking with Windows 7 until Windows 9 comes out, which I can only pray will reverse the direction MS is headed right now.

An OS with the brain the size of a planet couldn't stop a user from giving their credit card number to a Nigerian prince. Lots of malware and almost all phishing scams work by tricking people. No OS, no matter how sophisticated, can stop that.

"They're correct—and will continue to be correct, for a while. With only a few thousand applications in the Windows Store at this date, Metro won’t take over the traditional desktop any time soon. But in the long run, Microsoft’s emphasis on Metro points to a future in which Metro is the primary user interface for Windows desktops and tablets, for mouse-and-keyboard users and touch-screen users alike. And, unless Microsoft changes course, it will be locked down in ways the traditional Windows desktop never was."

You have absolutely no evidence of this, and therefore the article is completely invalid. I'm a developer. I know a bit about Metro. It is FAR too restricted for them ever to do away with the desktop mode. They know they would be completely dumping a huge part of their market share (the business users). Not going to happen. Ever.

Metro is meant as a tack-on feature because MS wants to hit the tablet market, and the desktop doesn't work on tablets. That's all there is to it. No need to read in.

You gave short shrift to the landscape at the time the iOS App Store was created. There was NOT lots of awesome stuff happening in the smartphone space that Apple thus blocked from the iPhone with its App Store restrictions. There was NOTHING interesting happening on phones at the time. Service providers mostly controlled what you could put on your phone. Remember how you thought it was awesome when you were allowed to load your own ring tone? (OMG The Future Is Here!) Windows CE was a bore.

Otherwise, I agree with the article. The iOS App Store lockdown model is NOT appropriate for a desktop/laptop. Apple has pushed Mac OS X to the edge of acceptability. I can deal with the current model. It must, however, go no further toward lockdown.

Well, can you blame them? I'm sure we all here would prefer a more open Windows, but let's acknowledge reality: customers obviously prefer a locked-down approach.

Please show your workings for this conclusion.

In particular, please prove that people are consciously preferring the locked-down Apple ecosystem rather than simply preferring the Apple ecosystem for other reasons, such as branding / content availability / application availability.

I doubt that such restrictions are people's first thought when evaluating the options. I actually doubt that the mythical Man On The Street would even have this as a third, fourth or fifth thought.

The issue here is that Microsoft is taking an established open ecosystem, and trying to apply heavy limitations to it. You can get away with such limitations on a new ecosystem, to some degree. (But Apple have had to loosen their restrictions over time, so it appears you can only get away with it for so long.)But to apply these limitations to multi-purpose machines that got their niche precisely because they could run anything - well, it just seems perverse.

Personally I am sick and tired of hackers, malware, scams, phishing, etc. and hugely in favor of curated "good" programs. Please lock down that PC and go in and remove anything bad that slips over the wall and into the nice garden.

However, I do believe in freedom of speech and would like to see cases brought up to destroy the ability of the walled gardeners to practice censorship. Keeping bad code out is good. Telling people what kind of content they have access to is bad.

The way I like to think it should unfold: at some later point in the Windows orbit, Microsoft allows additional app stores which define different standards. On each system or device, an administrative user may enable subscription to these additional app stores for himself and/or other users. Microsoft could host these additional app stores, or it could allow other entities to do so.

So I imagine, for instance, an "Anything Goes" app store which has literally no restrictions, but is widely known to be a less safe place to install apps from. Admin users would knowingly choose to subscribe to this store if they felt personally up to the task of navigating these elevated risks.

Or maybe a "Rated Apps" store where each app could carry ratings like we find in the movie industry: G, PG, R, X, etc.

Subscriptions to any store should be very easy to see and administer. So, for instance, when the user takes his device to a technician, the tech's first step would be to see what stores were subscribed to. "Ah, I see you subscribed to the Anything Goes store, so you could have malware on the system. Let's unsubscribe from that and remove all Anything Goes apps and see if your problem goes away."

With the way things have been going in the MS camp, I've finally been driven to install OpenSUSE on my laptop, and learning to use a Linux distro.

I'm a huge gamer, so having Win7 is a must for now, but who knows what the future holds. At best I'll have a back up plan ready when doomsday comes, at worst I'll have learnt another OS...

I'm in the same boat! Already looking into which of my games will work under linux or using Wine. I'd love to be able to just using linux on my computers. No netflix and no games is currently the problem..

Yeah I should be doing the same (I only have 1 evening of Linux experience under my belt for now, so the concept of multiple ways to install stuff is all new to me). Fortunately I've fallen out of love with AAA games for the last 3 years, so I'm hoping that most of my indie titles work under WINE.

If not, I suppose i can play Simutrans, FreeCiv and roguelikes lol

All the games in the Humble indie bundles work under linux so that's a pretty good start:) And I think there was a site called playitonlinux.com or something listing tons of gog.com games etc that work under their software, which is similar to wine I think. I never play AAA games anymore either so as long as I can get some of my older strategy games to work I'd be fine I think. (although europa universalis 4 is pretty tempting..

I'm self-thought in linux too. Mostly from setting up an ubuntu home server and a few things at work. Using the myriads of guides online it's not that hard IMO. My use of ubuntu desktop before has been pretty pleasant. I need to reinstall it again after my upgrade and dual boot again. Check out the gaming options. Maybe a week of using only linux?:)

I hope I don't live in a fantasy world when I say I hope that when Metro is able to replace the normal desktop, it will no longer be Windows Store only. I hope, some 5 years down the line or whatever, Metro becomes windowed and unrestricted and that this is only a start to a move away from Win32. I mean, I certainly like the idea of Metro apps and have no problem using them alongside my desktop apps, but I would not want just Metro apps.

I'm probably living in a fantasy world though.

I really don't think metro will be replacing regular desktop anytime soon. For some type of apps, say a weather app or a transit app, metro makes perfect sense. But for some apps/programs, say autocad or some other scientific programs, it really doesn't look very suitable.

So, I have no problem for what I call limited apps being limited to distribution via the windows store.

Personally I am sick and tired of hackers, malware, scams, phishing, etc. and hugely in favor of curated "good" programs. Please lock down that PC and go in and remove anything bad that slips over the wall and into the nice garden.

However, I do believe in freedom of speech and would like to see cases brought up to destroy the ability of the walled gardeners to practice censorship. Keeping bad code out is good. Telling people what kind of content they have access to is bad.

This is exactly my opinion. It's great for my grandmother, not so great for everybody.

I like Disneyland. It’s clean, safe, and efficient. There are lots of entertaining things to do. Kids can drive cars; adults can wear goofy hats with impunity. There’s a parade every afternoon, and an underground medical center in case you get sick.

All of this is possible because of central planning. Every restaurant and store on Disneyland’s Main Street is approved in advance by Disney. Every employee is vetted by Disney. Disneyland wouldn’t be Disneyland without central planning.

I like to visit Disneyland, but I wouldn’t want to live there.[...]I like living in a place where anybody can open a restaurant or store. I like living in a place where anybody can open a bookstore and sell whatever books they want. Here in New Jersey, the trains don’t always run on time, but they take you to lots of interesting places.

I can not agree with your opinion that the Desktop will "obviously" be phased out in favor of the Metro screen. Two of the biggest additions in Windows 8 - Hyper-V support and Storage Spaces - are available only via the desktop. There's absolutely no way to monitor or control those from the Metro side. Not to mention the massive improvement they've made to the graphics stack for 2D HWA that (although affects Metro apps as well) is predominantly designed for the rendering of the desktop UI and text reflowing/rendering.

So they just add these huge additions to the desktop in order to..what? Take it away? There will always be a desktop. Metro is just for content consumption and although I have no problem with that; how do you believe that content that gets consumed will be made without the desktop for the content production? How do you expect Drafters like myself to work within the confines of the Metro developer environment? You bring up the issues of the game ratings and yet it's not like you could sell Skyrim through the App Store to begin with. The game couldn't be rewritten to Visual Basic or HTML 5 to get accepted into the store anyways, regardless of its content rating.

I absolutely agree with your opinion that the Microsoft Store itself should be more open. That there should be options to allow you to side-load applications without having to pay a Developer's fee. But the idea that the desktop will be a legacy item I think is quite foolish and there's no evidence to back that up.